Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 23, 2013 3:30pm-4:01pm PDT

3:30 pm
and focused program on our customers. >> all right. >> so, our customers who are our customers the municipal customers? >> or potential customer? s >> yes. >> both of those. and if there is a power assessment program, yes, and that is already envisioned in the enabling statute that this program would need to be integrated with the clean puf program and we have customers at hunter's point in the new community that is being developed there with lamar. and we have the prospect of additional customers at treasure island and it is rationalizing who we provide this benefit to and making sure that we are not just addressing private customer needs but also the customers that are our
3:31 pm
customer and that are governing agencies as well as private customers. and so just, it would be to make sure that that is cleaner maybe in in way, clearer. and our customers, because it is just as you are saying to open up the conversation. >> i think that it is as clear as it can be. at the moment. >> and it is focused on the customers as the exact phrase that it uses and i think that is pretty clear. but it is not clear and needs to be unclear at this point is the discussions between ourselves and the various interest groups as to exactly what we end up meaning by that. >> we don't have a (inaudible) program yet and it might look different if we do than if we don't, and so it can't be clear with respect to that. what we are really saying is that our objective is if we are spending money that benefits electric customers, they should be our customers.
3:32 pm
and i think that is pretty clear. and how that actually works itself out, and within the context of the solar program and that is something that the general manage and her staff needs to discuss with the various interest groups. >> yes. and just a couple of questions to clarify. in my own mind, were the conversations or can we require that the conversations include discussions surrounding the cca goal? solar and the non-cca goal of solar? right because we are moving forward with go solar but we have yet to move the cca. >> right? >> and so we will be able to have that conversation with that right? >> yes. >> and then with respect to the status of go solar, my understanding is that the status of it is that it is a pilot program. will we begin to analyze that and then no longer make those references and just call it a program and a budget item of
3:33 pm
the puc? >> well, it does not address that specifically, and my hope is that as we move towards a customer, you know, a san francisco customer, based program, that, that that will have the effect of terminating it. and i don't know if we ever need to make a formal declaration i think that if we are starting with our own customer its changes character and i think that the decision to go there says that we have already conclude and there is a benefit of it. >> and at that point,. and if i could clarify, just, to make sure that we have the common understanding of the facts. that the go solar program is a program statute did include a section that is a pilot program. that pilot program was for the first year. so that portion of the program that was characterized under the statute as pilot concluded.
3:34 pm
i think that we have come into the habit coming into it because the legislation was for ten years. so i think that perhaps, folks are thinking of ten years and that is the pilot aspect of it. and the aspect of the program has concluded that the program and the funding our capitol plan for ten years total. >> i think that you would come up. >> and that is a concern of mine is and so now, i clearly understand it and i appreciate that and i only have one last clarification. and once we start to rule out whatever we are going to rule out from this point forward, there is going to be conversation and there is going to be labor components and we did get it back on how we will let that out and that will also be ape subject of these
3:35 pm
discussions and am i right? >> that is correct. the whole idea behind this is to bring our stake holders in the room and come up where they process where we can do solar on our own customers. and in a way that is ininclusive of all of the stake holder in all of the advocates and so we need to sit down and have that conversation. >> prior to engaging in any of the other agencies, and the pec conversation and it is not a conversation and we are not going to reach out to any other agency to get their take on it or opinions, and it will start here and here, and we may. >> right? >> and so, you know, we are working with the department of environment and we are working with the solar, industry, we are working with the unions and we are just talking about how we can put a program together that will meet the needs of all of the stake holders to see
3:36 pm
what the stake holder looks like. >> any further comments? >> please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners and eddie and the (inaudible) project and we would like to thank the staff for working with the advocates to insure that the funding can be restored to go solar sf and there has been progress in this regard giving that originally, it has set to be phased out and now that we have reidentifiesed that with the leadership from the mayor, as well as the general manager himself talking about how we can get to four million at least of the 5 million of the original funding and it will continue to advocate to make sure that that five million is restored and to also insure that clear effective and administration of this program is happening i would like to address three specific points. my point is to make sure that
3:37 pm
you include them in the comments and we were all very supportive of this program as well. >> absolutely. and it was actually going to be my third last point. >> yeah, right. >> you must be a lawyer. >> and first, lee lay in funding has been disruptive to the solar industry itself and we have heard from the solar installation community that the ups and downs have had a negative effect since the announcement of doubling the funding to making sure that the actual funding will be distributed in october we will have the funding availasht term the one of the interests that we would is ask them to look at to be sure that it is available as soon as possible. and second with all due respect to commission moran we do not accept what is offered today. we had a point as to why the customers were not (inaudible) and to given the day of a flux of solar programs we would be happy to be part of the
3:38 pm
discussions in the future as to what this amendment means. and third and finally, a request for the commission in the broad and full support for sfpuc throughout the last year is to look at the workforce development portion which is a specific portion of go solar sf and how to improve that aspect by potentially piloting a new approach which is state certified apprenticship, and in suring that we can have a community workforce in solar which is part of the greens job division at the end of the day. >> thank you for your time and patience. >> commissioners, my name is (inaudible) and i am ceo of power tree services inc and i am involved with a solar installation company here. and between the two companies
3:39 pm
we have installed over 207 projects, in conjunction with the solar san francisco since the inception and totaling just about a mega wat of the over all size of this project was focusing exclusively on the multiunit buildings, and we are currently installing three megawatts of the battery and two megawatts of the electric vehicle charges and another 200 kilo watts of solar under construction and i want to say that the go solar program has been key, to enabling these kinds of projects and i encourage that you will continue the program and find the ways to do with as much funding as possible. in light of that, i would support commissioner moran amendment i think that it is reasonable and will encourage more solar installations if you consider it in conjunction with
3:40 pm
the feeding terrace and i would propose that you suggest that the percentage of the funding provided by the go solar program relative to the cost of the project be, allocated back to the energy fee to continue to fun the program. the number one issue in regards to costs of solar, is number one the panels it is the labor, the overhead and the finance time. and the idea of the funding coming back as a rebate, from the commission, by being in a customer of the commission would actually help to reduce the cost because that can be taken in a better financial structure. because right now, and any of the go solar funding is actually taxable income and by shifting it into a rebate process it is no longer taxible to the customer and that is a no-cost method of further reducing the cost and a great way of bringing further funds into the program by actually having the energy produced be
3:41 pm
charged for by being a cca customer and i do encourage that kind of thinking. and i encourage that you continue the program. in light of that also, i encourage you to really work on some of the workforce development costs, and the rules so that we have consistent project and delivery capability and as the previous commenter, yeah, with the hardest part about solar is that it is peak and valleys, you ramp up and you have to drop off and we need consistency, and we need continuous availability of funds and very predictable availability of funds for this project to be done. thank you very much. >> john, (inaudible) with the sierra club. we support the proposed changes to the allocations, and it
3:42 pm
makes sense that the cost of solar has come down and we think that the money could be as the rest of the staff could be split in better and more solar installation and more mega watts for the same amount of money. and so that is a good thing. and what, we are concerned about is, what the delay in releasing firms, i believe that it is not proposed that the funds are being released in october. and and you know, it has been, you know, the mayor made his statement of support in march. and october, is not a great time to start getting out letters, you run into the christmas season and then the rains start, so, we would urge that the funds be released sooner than that. and the sf program is a major
3:43 pm
part of the city's effort to meet its greenhouse gas goals. so, we want this program to be successful and i could keep working and to keep working regularly and smoothly rather than having it stop and start, and so, sooner rather than later, would be much better, thank you. >> >> could i ask a quick... >> it you for being here and thank you for your support. and mr. id from the line defense project presented an idea related to modern unit organizizing and we discussed this and there is a jobs component that is important and it is important to the labor organization but it is even more important to the committee of workforce that all of these organizations represent. and do you feel comfortable with the idea presented by him today? >> well, you know, we have to
3:44 pm
take it >> the modern using organizing. >> and it is the workforce come ponent. >> yeah, i guess that i will have to take it back to the group. we do strongly support that component of the program and that is one of the rens that we are concerned about the gaps in the program because it does not allow, people to have continuous jobs, and they, they get off and we just do support, and the preapprenticeship program and that would be a great program for this program. >> and that is exactly right. >> just to bring the san franciscans up to reinforce
3:45 pm
that part of the program thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, president torres, and public utilities commissioners, my name is doug perish and i am the president and ceo of red diper, we are a solar installer here in the city. we install pv as well as large residential and commercial and also multifamily projects i am here in support of the go solar program and to ask the commission to pass with no delay the amended go solar program and we have done several trainings in our communities and the program will allow some of the installers to hire folks from these installation programs that we offer to provide sustain able jobs that gives
3:46 pm
young adults some constructive things to do and i ask that you move forward with this and just to delay it if it is denied and call for the freedom writers, and that you will move it as quickly as possible. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. and general managers. and thank you, very much for that, and one of my colleagues (inaudible) is a sf certified employees with the child care and was not able to be here but she asked me to tell you thank you. and she came to us as a neighborhood design three years ago. and has really grown, it has been a career pathway off of
3:47 pm
general assistance, and it would be possible by your program. and we with the san francisco based installer and we are the only woman-owned installer in san francisco in the bay area. we have been a certified workforce development employer through the solar sf since october of 2008, when the program was first launched. we were the first san francisco installation company to get the application in and 20 percent of our workforce of the full time workforce, all of the workforce has been with with the certified employees in the lowest point in terms of the hiring, and the workforce development program of this program is critical and it is important. the fact that it is a full time employment is really important. but, as stated for the companies need to staff up. and when we staffed up, outside of san francisco, we have been
3:48 pm
able to use a state certified apprentices but we can't do that in san francisco. so, eddie had proposed that we expand the workforce development to allow for that staffing and so that we can hire the 20 individuals through the state certified apprenticeship programs and i think that would be a positive thing. the main, we support getting the funding released as quickly as possible. and the solar installation we had a lot of pent up demand over the last few years because there has not been enough funding with the sorts of structure that existed and so we knew that the structure was a positive thing and we waited until october to start releasing letters, however, is very painful for the solar installers because we would
3:49 pm
have lost the entire summer and that, means that we won't be able to hire the staff up because at the point that we are starting to get the information letters, it will be a rainy season. well it would be really nice to be able to use what happened in terms of the approval process that existed when csi commercial went out in trying to get that or get letters out as quickly as possible. and while working on an on-line program to provide for sustain able long term program. that would be the recommendation. >> all right. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, (inaudible) local restaurant organization in the city and, so first of all, kutos to the staff for coming up with some creative changes in the program and they are going to help to make it
3:50 pm
more robust and, help us to be able to keep it more fully funded and more operational. and i would concur with commissioner courtney, that we need to make sure that we are making robust as possible, the pathway to internship and hiring and all of that stuff and that is really crucial. and we should pursue that with all due diligence. on the issue of another thing that on the defense liners is that on the issue of making it so it is just san francisco customers i think that is an excellent goal and i think that once, clean power sf is up and run and we are seeing that we have a lot of customer up take that that would make a lot of sense and that i would worry that if we jumped and going too soon on just making for the san francisco customers, that did it make or create the stuff in the program and that actually would be enough customers for the up take on the program and
3:51 pm
so, in this condition, that this stuff is in, that i think that we need to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to make it robust enough to move forward quickly. and consistently. and then, initial insist entcy and the points that folks are making is the issue of waiting until the rainy season to start the next round of funding for this is problematic and the fact that the funding for this program has been so on again and >> what would you recommend as the date. >> just release the funds immediately and take over option is necessary to do that. and then,... >> follow up on that, with whatever it takes. >> and so, one of the issues is that we release, $820,000 already. >> the challenge is that the state no longer offers a rebate program, and therefore, we were accepting, and they were
3:52 pm
accepting application and we would just use the applications, and now, since they don't have that infrastructure in place, now we have to accept the applications. and so, that has been a challenge. and so, just to let you know that is not like we are not doing anything, it is just that we have to put the infrastructure in place now, because the state does not offer the incentives any more. >> right. >> so, what does that mean in terms of a time line. >> i think that when we determined the rules, which we are coming out with the rules then you could actually market and you can start marketing now it is just that we have to put the on-line system in place so that you could put the applications in. that we will put it on-line application and the process in place. and that sounds like a little progress and i would urge. >> and more credit than that.
3:53 pm
>> and i would urge that the general manager of staying in contact with them and accidental and make sure that they are actually true that they will be able to market it right away because like i say, on again or off again, and no matter how much funding is going to be and it is really strain. >> on the other hand we had the rain today so you never can tell. >> part of what i do for the grassroots organization i called them on the phone to get an update on the organization and to keep them you know to get them to fund and things like that. and to quite often i get comments and frustration with the sf program, and the funding is not there and the part of the solar panels on there on the roof and so i would say whatever it takes let's accelerate this as quickly as possible as issuing this funtding because in the beginning the changes being made is positive and we need to
3:54 pm
get the train going and keep it rolling. >> >> one of the things that we did when i first became the chair was to send off a letter to the mayor, to the puc and to thank you for all of your work that brought us to this moment with double the fupding on go solar sf, and i think that there is a lot of excitement and as you hear there say lot of support for the changes. and you want to extend the offer to president torres if it is appropriate we would love to have a joint meeting and lend our support to help you to
3:55 pm
address this big question of what is the long term funding opportunities for the program so we are not having the conversation and where we will going through the peaks and valleys and something for the long term. and there is a lot of expertise and a lot of heart over at our shop and the commission as well. so we love to do that. when the time is right. and again, thank you just to add a couple of quick points. i don't know if we have enough of these stake holders meetings, that it is not just the ability to market the program, but i think that this challenge is real that if there is a way to get the ability and not just to market but to get the applications filed is the key. because if you market to them and say we will call you back in october you will lose the customer and i know that from listening to the intallers and if we could be flexible to get it in place tomorrow but august first could be a good day to where even if you had to use
3:56 pm
the existing levels of the installers to put the customers in the kiss temperature so you get it approved today and up and running we are going to miss this window and the idea of looking at the state certified apprenticeship and also service to employers and also to go through the ups and down to carry them through the payroll and the program helps you to supply the target workers when the need is there. this last final point, commissioner, has good direction of something to talk about in the meetings but i would offer, if it did not have to be an amendment because everything that is before you today has been vetted for dozens and dozens of hours, by a lot of folks and i am trying to understand exactly. i think that i know what the goal is, but i would love to be part of everyone in this room to talk about it and know that it is a direction from at a minimum, commissioner moran and
3:57 pm
the commission and they do not hard code it into the ordinance or whatever you have in front of you, the resolution at this time. >> thanks. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> any further comments? >> hearing a motion? >> where are we? >> do you want to restrike the motion with the amendment counsel? are you deferring to commissioner moran? >> he has the language. >> resolution, just restate your amendment. >> it is adding whereas the goal of the program currently accepts the applications from all private customers in san francisco, and newly resolves that it directs the new manager to provide further improvements for the program for implementation 26014, and the stake holders and the program, focused on our customers. >> all right. >> and so, i appreciate the amendment and because, one of the things that i think has
3:58 pm
come up repeatedly is the question of the tower and it feels like at least it gives us the opportunity to open up that conversation, and really see what that really means, and you know, i should think at this time, having all of the customers in here does not mean that at a future date we could not add an additional amend. but it collar identifies at least where we are with the variety of programs that we are looking at. and you know, opportunity, and really to unpack each of those customer classes and see what we are talking about which we don't really know right now. >> and they do like the piece too, additionally that talks about you know, directing the general manager to look at different components that could make the program stronger. and if we do indeed, approve this, resolution, and amendment and move forward with it and i would also like one of those considerations to be either as quickly on the freedom (inaudible) and potential
3:59 pm
energy fees to really pay for this and to look at the bigger issue is how to fund this program on an ongoing basis and some kind of a fee structure that we could look at that could support that effort and i would like to call that out as a peacably work that comes out of in this proposed amendment >> it is a recommendation and not additional language. >> correct. >> so i got you. >> and the sense of the commission, and that would support and the commission as well? >> any other comments? >> all right. it has been moved as amended. >> call the roll. >> second? >> second. >> all of those in favor signify by saying hao*i. >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the mission carries. >> thank you. >> are we ready for the closed session? i will accept a motion. >> public comment for the closed session? >> once i get the motion done. >> so moved.
4:00 pm
>> all right. >> second. >> all right we have a motion for attorney client privilege, is there any public comment on the closed session agenda? >> all right, there being none we will move to the closed session. >> closed session item 17. conference with legal counsel - pursuant to california government code section 54956.9(d)(1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d)(1). existing claim: (roddy) proposed settlement agreement and stipulation for entry central valley regional water quality control board administrative civil liability order r-5-2013-0545 filed: july 2, 2012 >> item 19conference with legal counsel - pursuant to california government code section 54956.9(d)(1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10 (d)(1). (mueller) existing litigation: city and county of san francisco v. pacific gas & electric company san francisco superior court case no. cgc-13-529310 city attorney file no. 0000657/date filed june 6, 2013 item 20conference with legal counsel - pursuant to california government code section 54956.9(d)(1) and n